Besides being racist this is kind of dumb. If you’re going to bring down the plane you’re defo not going to look like someone who gets randomly selected 100% of the time. Even the 9/11 terrorists knew this and shaved their beard instead of looking like the fundamentalists scumbags they were.

Just because it’s dumb doesn’t mean people won’t do it.

I mean TSA, but it also applies to other groups too.

Is there any videos of this thing or maybe just the OS?

Oh you can declare anything… but the minute you don’t pay you taxes you’ll realize it’s just words.

When terror is used to enforce policy, not laws, and its done arbitrarily, under pretexts, the govt is broken, and resistance, which is built into the framework of our development as a nation, is necessitated.

I think this was explained before. But basically the processing takes so long (over a year) that you are guaranteed to overstay most visas and leaving the US is considered as abandoning your petition for a green card.

So you are in this limbo state where you are given some kind of status while the application is pending and you absolutely can’t leave the country.

But that’s not the issue here nor why people are being detained.

People came to the US with intend to marry and apply for a green card on non immigrant visa. For instance British citizens on a visa waiver can just show up and get married. That’s legal.

But it turns into immigration fraud if you always intended to apply for a green card afterwards.

What you are supposed to do is apply for a K1 fiancé visa which takes another year.

Green cards are not rights. If your date is set a year out and you don't have a visa for a year, you got unlucky. This is how migration works.

Yes the point is that sucks. Saying "well that's how it is" is true, but also not useful.

It was a choice to design it this way, and a poor choice. We should demand better. Since when have Americans become so spineless?

Yes, exactly. Your legal options are to either remain separated for one or two years while you wait, or the American can immigrate to the spouse’s country and wait there (since almost every other country is easier to immigrate to).

It's an inhumane system, but as someone heavily impacted by US immigration policy, I'd much prefer they enforce the laws evenly and then fix them where they're broken rather than disadvantaging everyone going through the legal process while those that cheat get to jump ahead.

> I'd much prefer they enforce the laws evenly and then fix them where they're broken rather than disadvantaging everyone going through the legal process while those that cheat get to jump ahead.

That is incredibly optimistic to believe that any legislation reforming immigration will be passed in the next decade.

There is a reason ICE was neutralized until now. Life is short. We don't have time for congress to play politics while Americans and their spouses suffer. Let people live their lives.

Maybe I'm too stiff, but even if they don't get around to updating the laws, I'd still prefer they enforce the ones that exist so it's clear, fair, and safe. And so upstanding citizens aren't spending years separated from their spouses while they keep getting skipped by people willing to cheat the system.

It's not even a law that results in the years-long wait; it's just because the system is clogged up with other junk and understaffed. As other's have mentioned; there's no formal waiting for citizen spouses—it's supposed to be immediate—it's just that they don't even get to look at your application for years.

What would be your definition of “upstanding citizens”.

I’ve found that people tend to respond as you have until the laws impact themselves or their friends. Then it’s very much a case of - I didn’t think this applied to us…

People following the actual immigration law, like I did. This very much impacts me and has determined my family's country of residence for many years. The process is horrible, but we still aren't cheating and I don't appreciate being skipped by people that are cheating.

I've spent hours on immigrations forums trying to understand the law and have filed many US Federal forms (and have mad mistakes) taken years to get action done while following the law.

It really feels like a slap in the face to the people who do the "right thing" to allow others to be allowed in freely not following the law.

Fix the issues first.

As somebody also directly impacted by the US immigration system, yes please do enforce the laws on the books universally and impartially.

Immigration reform will happen, but regardless no queue cutting.

Yeah, we married in California but then left when my wife finished her Ph.D. and used up her optional practical training period on her student visa. After about four years of being an expat, I realized it wasn't for me and we started planning a return.

So, we filed the spousal petition with USCIS overseas. It was a lot of paperwork, interviews for her, and some process delays. Eventually she got her immigrant visa issued. Upon arrival in the US on that visa, it was endorsed to reflect immigration status.

This was about fifteen years ago, and as I recall the process delays were pretty much as advertised at the time. We were able to time our filing so that the visa was issued around when she would be ready to relocate.

Most of the time we spent apart was due to our conflicting career opportunities and obligations. I think the petition could have been pipelined better if I'd been willing to stick with my expat job until she also wrapped up her work there.

> I can see why people were tempted to cut corners, especially given past tolerance…

Which is one of the reasons that the pre-trump executive orders that granted leniency and amnesty at times were all terrible terrible things to do. We really have a problem in this country where we've decided that the laws suck, but we don't want to do the hard part of changing the law, so we just decide to ignore it. Until at some point someone comes along and decides to enforce the law and now a whole bunch of people who were acting on the de facto state of the law now have to deal with the consequences of the de jure state of the law.

Immigration is a place we've done this a lot, but things like the status of marijuana across the country is also predicated on this sort of arbitrary non-enforcement of the law. Obviously the states are not obligated to enforce federal law, but the feds absolutely can. The feds could raid every marijuana dispensary in the country and take them all down with barely a hiccup, at least from a legality standpoint. Yet they don't because we have decided to arbitrarily not enforce the law, even if we haven't changed the law.

I had really hoped after Trump's first term, we would have seen a real awakening to the amount of things that are allowed only because we don't actually enforce the laws that are on the books, and a real push to both fix the laws and roll back the abuses of executive power like this. But we didn't seem to learn that lesson, and sadly it doesn't look like that lesson is going to be learned this time either.

> The feds could raid every marijuana dispensary in the country

This is not a realistic scenario, but does seem to present the argument, that Federal law and the power to enforce it is inherently and legally superior to individual State laws?

> fix the laws and roll back the abuses of executive power

Perhaps we could start with the federal law that made marijuana a Schedule One controlled substance: so that ordinary residents of responsible and responsive states would not have to rely on "arbitrary non-enforcement of the law" in order to get their smoke on.

Think about it! Every one of those citizen-puffers are in violation of federal law! Send in the troops!

The argument seems to be that federal laws overrule states', and that underlying idea justifies sending military forces into cities, because, you know, federal laws are being violated, everywhere, like, all the time, man.

Sheesh.

> This is not a realistic scenario, but does seem to present the argument, that Federal law and the power to enforce it is inherently and legally superior to individual State laws?

That's the current state of US law yes. That's why California needs explicit permission from the federal government to have more restrictive air quality laws than the federal standards. It's also quite literally baked into the constitution:

>This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in >Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the >Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the >Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or >Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Subsequent rulings and case law have largely established that the states and their law enforcement agencies are not inherently bound to enforce federal law, but that is a very grey area with lots of edge cases, and can change substantially depending on the "incorporation" status of the underlying constitutional basis for the law. This is why the drinking age is controlled by highway funding rather than direct legislative imposition, but it's also why the feds can and will send the military in to ensure your schools are integrated. The interplay between the supremacy clause and the 9th and 10th amendments is a very complex part of the legal system but this has been the state of the country for a very long time.

> Perhaps we could start with the federal law that made marijuana a Schedule One controlled substance

You'll get no argument from me on this front. Especially since there is a federally legal synthetic form of THC that is actively prescribed by doctors for cancer patients. It's called Dronabinol and it's a Schedule III substance. Yes you're reading that right. Psychoactive THC can be obtained via prescription in the US from any pharmacy and that synthetic version is a lower control level than xanax. And all of this in the face of the fact that the plant source of the THC is a Schedule I substance which in theory is supposed to mean there is no known or accepted medical use for the substance. Which seems like a lie.

> The argument seems to be that federal laws overrule states', and that underlying idea justifies sending military forces into cities, because, you know, federal laws are being violated, everywhere, like, all the time, man.

It's not "the argument", it's the actual law of the land. The fact that the feds can't send in the military is that we explicitly disallow the use of military forces for domestic law enforcement. But that restriction doesn't apply to non-military federal LEOs and even with the military, it's a grey area (see aforementioned use of the National Guard to enforce racial integration). And it's one of the reasons why we should have been concerned about the ever expanding federal powers in general and executive powers LOOONG before Trump had ever considered running the first time. It's part of what makes "legislating" via the courts so dangerous, and what makes the impulse some people seem to have to respond to the Trump administration by way of things like court packing and other attempts to simultaneously empower the federal government without also empowering Trump a dangerous impulse.

The UK (same as the US) has lots of extra territorial laws. Enforcing them is another matter.

It’s easy to make Apple budge because they have money ties to the Uk.

This works less well for unsavory websites not complying with UK law. See https://prestonbyrne.com/2025/10/16/the-ofcom-files/

The UK has no problem asking their ISPs to block the Pirate Bay. Why can’t OFCOM do this? I don’t understand the attempt to pursue this in a foreign country. It’s fairly obvious that what they’re doing are not considered crimes in the US and politically it looks bad from Trump and his administration. And also, until 5 mins ago I had no idea this site existed. Now I do. Seems to achieve the polar opposite as I’m in the UK and browsing a dangerous forbidden site now. Wooooo

The problem is that these private companies have taken a disproportionate place in public discourse. You are absolutely right that freedom of speech does not guarantee the right to post anything on YouTube (someone else's website). In fact YouTube has the right (protected speech) to censor you and refuse to let you post long as they don't do in a discriminatory way (for instance, only "white people" can post would be discriminatory/illegal).

The problem is that in practice, if you can't do YouTube, Facebook, Tiktok, INsta, etc... your speech will not be heard by anyone. It's like if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it, the fact that it makes sound is irrelevant. So effectively, it amounts to censorship, even though the government potentially had no hand in it.

Now imagine someone in Trump administration pressured Google with a juicy contract, or the prospect of an expensive lawsuit, and the quid pro quo was dumping these videos that annoy "our Israeli friends". This kind of "pay to play" is at minimum corruption. It may also fall of short of constitutional guarantees for free speech. Ironically, it is exactly the same thing a lot of members of the Trump administration have accused Biden of doing (exhibit: the so called "Twitter Files" etc... ), although I don't believe this went anywhere in federal courts (am I wrong?)

I honestly don't know what the answer is. But I would not be surprised if in 50 years time, some of these large companies get regulated as "utilities" and are no longer able to yank "videos" from their platform just because they feel like it. And every time they "abuse" their powers, I feel like we get an inch closer to that onerous regulation.

Utilities seems the right idea.

The article has a very long list of alleged Israeli violations of international law and human rights. Here's a quick summary.

Genocide in Gaza. It is described as a "genocidal campaign" implying systematic targeting of a national, ethnic, or religious group, prohibited under the 1948 Genocide Convention. This is what the ICC is investigating now.

War Crimes:

- Killing of Palestinian civilians, including children and families.

- Killing of journalist Shireen Abu Akleh, a violation of the Geneva Conventions protecting civilians and journalists in conflict zones.

- Destruction of Palestinian homes in the occupied West Bank, possibly constituting collective punishment or unlawful destruction of property under the Fourth Geneva Convention.

- Intentionally starving civilians by blocking humanitarian aid into Gaza, explicitly prohibited under Article 54 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions and cited in ICC arrest warrants for Israeli officials.

- Torture of Palestinian detainees by Israeli forces, a violation of the UN Convention Against Torture.

The article also alleges complicity from the US authorities and corporations (YouTube, Google, MailChimp).

The irony is that JD Vance lectured the Europeans about their lack of freedom of speech in Europe while invited in Germany.